As someone who has lived in the Broads for only 4 years I have a different perspective on the ‘political’ landscape of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads than those who have lived here longer. They have a much longer perspective, but sometimes an outsider can see things differently.
What I have seen is a very, very vocal minority, who oppose everything the BA do or say, almost without exception, and have a perspective on the Broads which I see as quite false. The boating forums are broadly “anti-BA” (although of course they will say they are just offering constructive criticism - hmm)
One of the places this is most focussed is the Facebook Group “Protect The Broads We are Not a National Park” (637 members)
Here are some, fairly typical comments from a thread of 24th April 2018 - this is the OP on the BA peer review:
OP
It seems it is now acknowledged that the Broads Authority has a problem or two. its internal workings are reported by their Peer Group review as hardly fit for purpose, whilst it is now acknowledged the Authority has lost touch and confidence with its stakeholders. As a single and probably minor stakeholder, my view is that they are not going to regain my confidence or indeed get back 'in touch', until they drop this ridiculous National Park pretence. That is my price. Might this meet with general approval and do you think there is any mileage in it? REPLY
No, it would take more than just the removal of the BNP tag to regain my confidence. I need to be content that any administration understands the unique community of broadspeople, its ways, its history and its way of doing things. I do not need to see a self promoting, over safety conscious body that calls itself an "authority" that seems to think it can lord it over the very people it is supposed to serve. I could go on but rant over, temporarily.
REPLY
Too late for me, there will be no return conditional or otherwise. Packman has single handedly destroyed the Broads culture and is well on track to destroy what's left of it's "sustainable" industry. There is greener grass elsewhere.
From extensive reading here are my analysis of the core beliefs of this group.
1. Being a full National Park would be very bad for the Broads.
2. Sandford is a mechanism which will be used in a full NP to restrict or reduce boating, and boaters’ rights.
3. That the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads don’t really have any 'real' connection to the National Parks Authority, they were merely ‘associated’ as a political convenience in the past.
4. John Packman (individually and specifically) wants to reduce or restrict boaters’ rights and reduce further the navigable length of river available to boaters.
5. That John Packman is using a “thin end of the wedge” technique to make the Broads a Full NP by the back door.
6. That the BA is mismanaging the Broads and that the situation generally in the Broads is poor and in need of radical change to bring it back to a time when it was better.
I find this narrative false on nearly all counts. Why then has a false narrative arisen, and why is it repeated so often?
HISTORY
I think it has two main sources, firstly a deep-seated personal animosity to John Packman, and secondly but more importantly the echo of the battle over the Broads Bill 2009.
The first I find deeply unpleasant and unnecessary. It does nothing to advance the debate, but perhaps it’s much easier for people to hate individuals than an ‘Authority’.
A comment from a frequent contributor on the EDP website: Apart from the so called advantages to the tourist trade what actual advantages does the pseudo title of Broads National Park, BNP, actually bring to the Broads? Perhaps Dr Packman could enlighten us and explain honestly his reasons for pursuing the mythical BNP title. Might it be the eventual control that the Sandford Principle would bring, or a gong to accompany his impending retirement?
It is my belief that the fight over the Broads Bill is still being fought by the anti-Packman group.
That is, they are fighting a 10 year-old battle and that, as U2 say, they are ‘stuck in a moment and can't get out of it.’
Many of the names who crop up in the anti-Packman postings are the same ones who were involved in the 2009 Bill, and if you read the text of their writings then (see Broadly Speaking, the now silent forum that was the site of much of the anti-bill debate) you will see that the rhetoric is identical.
However, that was then. If the dire warnings of 10 years ago were correct then surely the Broads must have been ruined over the intervening time?
That is a subject for debate….
1. Being a full National Park would be very bad for the Broads.
People like National Parks. We think they’re good things. I haven’t been able to find any polls of public opinion on NPs generally, which I think is in large part to the fact that no one bothers to ask a question to which there is an obvious answer - do you think NPs are a good thing?
But crucially, would being a full NP bad for the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads?
Firstly, it is totally inconceivable that the Broads could become a Full NP with identical legislation to the others. This would require legislation to pass Parliament in the face of opposition from countless people and organisations.
So if the Broads cant be an identical Full NP to the others, there must always be a difference. The difference is the third purpose:
1. Conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Broads;
2. Promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Broads by the public; and
3. Protecting the interests of navigation.
NOTE: the first 2 are the same as the other NPS - someone intended there to be an obvious link perhaps?
To imagine that the third purpose could be swept away is taking What if? scenarios to absurd lengths.
The Broads Authority is a Navigation Authority, it will remain a Navigation Authority, if those powers and responsibilities were taken away there would be another Navigation Authority who would be responsible for navigation. Those responsibilities will always remain.
2. Sandford is a mechanism which will be used in a full NP to restrict or reduce boating, and boaters’ rights.
So if the Navigation responsibilities for the Broads can never be removed, then how is the Broads Authority going to use its impossible-to-achieve “Full NP” status to restrict navigation?
The answer is always Sandford.
Sandford is the Boogeyman. No one has ever seen him but we all quake in fear!
Of course, Sandford doesn’t exist - it was replaced by the 1995 Environment Act:
In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Park, any relevant authority shall have regard to the purposes specified in subsection (1) of section five of this Act and, if it appears that there is a conflict between those purposes, shall attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area comprised in the National Park
I cant count the number of times I’ve seen Sandford used on the Broads forums, and elsewhere. It’s nearly always used in a way that is, at best, misleading. But lets continue with the simplification that is difficult cases the principle is used to help decide what to do.
Firstly Sandford as an idea only comes into play when considering new developments. The recent zip-wire across Thirlmere in the lake district is a good example. The word Sandford was used by a number of people in making an argument against the zip-wire, but it was no part of the actual rejection. There are dozens of reasons why people would object to a development like that, and there are numerous ways for a planning authority to test it - noise, safety, beauty, traffic. To imagine they sat down and judged it on Sandford is just silly. It was the RAF saying it wasn’t safe that was the ultimate reason.
I have searched for cases where Sandford has been the direct cause of a restriction. I only have access to what is on the internet, but I can find no reference in the judgement on the 10mph speed limit on Windermere (the antis go-to example of how Sandford is used). If you read back through the history of the 10mph restriction it is quite complicated. There was a growth in high speed boat traffic in the 90s which made some argue for the restriction. The main reason was safety, not environment vs public enjoyment. The 10mph case is relevant, however, as a retro-active judgement - but one that was simply not based on Sandford.
It took many years and a public enquiry to bring in the 10mph limit.
When the 10mph limit was brought in, Speed week was moved to Coniston (also in the National Park). Hardly the environment being used as an argument to stop boating!
Green laning is also mentioned as a Sandford example, but as far as I can see its controlled by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, not Sandford. It's not something many people who done;t do it are very keen on. As a Lake District walker I would be outraged if it was widely allowed - a bit like allowing jet boats on Horsey. (Worth remembering her that boat racing is a big part of the Oulton Broad life)
I will be thrilled to see any examples where Sandford has been used in anger. I suspect they do exist, but remember, there are 15 National parks, so there must be lots of conflicts.
In summary - Full NP = Sandford = restriction on boating, doesn’t have any evidence to support it as a logical argument. Once again, it might be possible, but doesn’t the evidence say its incredibly unlikely?
3. That the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads don’t really have any connection to the National Parks
The Broads and the other NPs have 2 main purposes in common….
If you read the debates in 2008 and what Defra was saying, it was absolutely clear that the Broads were seen as an NP with an extra bit - navigation. The NP grant is an NP grant.
Anything else looks like clutching at straws.
4. John Packman (individually and specifically) wants to reduce or restrict boaters’ rights and reduce further the navigable length of river available to boaters.
Evidence? The best I’ve seen is a self-reported conversation with a very vocal anti…..
5. That John Packman is using a “thin end of the wedge” technique to make the Broads a Full NP by the back door.
This sounds plausible, but in my view is actually ridiculous. Legislation is required to change the status of the Broads. What is the mechanism for this change? Once again, What if? taken to absurd lengths.
6. That the BA is mismanaging the Broads and that the situation generally in the Broads is poor and in need of radical change to bring it back to a time when it was better.
This is the reason I argue so vociferously against the antis. In order to prove that John Packman and the BA are wicked and doing a terrible job it must be shown that the Broads are in a terrible state.
Because, if everything’s OK then what are they complaining about?
So what are the main charges against the BA? Loss of moorings, toll increases, planning, dredging, and money spent unwisely and overheads. There may be others, please add them.
I struggle to see moorings as anything other than a really tricky problem that the BA genuinely struggle to get right. Most of the disagreements and issues are with the owner of the land where the moorings are. Like all organisations that buy from a number of providers the BA cant get in a rising cycle of costs, with each seller increasing their price. So they have to manage what they can pay and what benefit the landowner gets. I think there is a lot of evidence that the BA are trying hard to make things better. Read their own documents on their site.
Toll increases - on what planet does no one complain about ANY increase? Seem within the sort of bounds we all expect from these things although last years restructure made a few really mad.
Planning - tricky one. Everyone loves a planner who lets them do what they want - and everyone hates a planner who stops them, or lets their neighbour do what they don’t want… Not sure there is much evidence that they are any less popular than planning authorities all over the country.
Dredging - expensive and very complex in the modern world. Many many people involved. They’ve just started dredging near Horning sailing club - immediate response from a forum - that’s going to be a problem for the 3 rivers. Damned if you do…. (moved on since I wrote - so typical non-starter)
Money spent unwisely. It is my experience that all public bodies suffer from a fairly constant drip drip of criticism. None escape this "Why oh Why?" stuff. Are the BA uniquely bad???
Overheads - never understood why the NP grant should pay all the overheads. Overheads are mostly people. Why shouldn’t the toll account pay for half?
I see the Broads in great shape. I see the BA doing a fairly decent job. I don’t see a nightmare. I see one of the best areas in the country, perhaps the world
I read that it’s awful, the BA have ruined it. That makes me both sad and a little angry.
I think some people should get out on the river more.
.png.5ff10cca1d0967e44a17e4a2edde2a80.png)
